Total Visits

Saturday, 8 June 2013

The Economist magazine apologises to the English Democrats!

The Economist magazine apologised to the English Democrats this 1st June for calling us “Far Right”.

The Economist had published an article about the current state of National Identity in England. It was written from a bit of a strange perspective. It only looked at the issue of National Identity from the somewhat undemocratic end of the telescope, as their perspective seemed to be more about what was acceptable to “ethnic minorities” than the perspective of what the majority might feel about their National Identity.

From the other end of the telescope and as I have written on previous occasions the exciting thing about the Census results, from an English Nationalist perspective is that 70% of the population of England say that they are “English” and over 60% said they were “English Only”, that is over 32 million people!

Obviously however a magazine is entitled to take an editorial decision that they are more interested in the ethnic minority’s than in the majorities opinion but what they are not entitled to do is to use untruth and innuendo to smear us. In this case I have taken action because of the “Far Right” smear against the English Democrats. I set out below the sequence of events. First, here is the Economist's article:-

May 25th 2013

IN 1924, speaking on St George’s Day, the then prime minister, Stanley Baldwin, gave thanks that for once he could refer to England “without some fellow at the back of the room shouting out: ‘Britain!’” Even then, the tendency of the English to forget the other nations of the United Kingdom irritated the politically correct. The distinction between Britain and England continues to confuse tourists; the natives furrow their brows, too. Filling in their census forms in 2011, some 60% of people in England gave their national identity as “English” only, whereas 19% gave it as “British” only. (The remainder were from another part of Britain, foreign nationals or claimed multiple national identities.) But, as data released on May 16th showed, there is great variation. Whether a person considers himself English first or British first is a powerful predictor of class, race and political persuasion. Blacks and Asians are far more likely to consider themselves British: just 8% of ethnic Bangladeshis in England identify straightforwardly as English, for example. The old are more likely to describe themselves as English than the young. And among white Britons there is a geographical divide. In central London and other wealthy places, Britishness is popular: just 57.5% of white Britons in Cambridge call themselves English. In poorer spots along the Thames Estuary, in the West Midlands and in many northern cities, Englishness is the default identity (see map). As Britain and Britishness have become more ethnically diverse, and as Scottish and Welsh nationalists have asserted themselves, many white Britons have turned to Englishness as an alternative identity. A poll by IPPR, a think-tank, finds that people who consider themselves English rather than British tend to be more hostile to immigration and more likely to vote for right-wing parties such as the UK Independence Party. For some, the flag of St George is too closely associated with far-right groups such as the English Defence League. That repels ethnic minorities and wealthy white liberals. Yet there are reasons for optimism. Mixed-race people are far more likely to claim an English identity: some 46% identified themselves that way in the census. People with mixed black Caribbean and white parentage identify as English almost as often as whites do. And in some places where Englishness in general is more common, such as the West Midlands, ethnic minorities as well as whites are embracing it. That suggests that Englishness is becoming less exclusive. Some would like that process to speed up. Sunder Katwala, the director of British Future, another think-tank, reckons that the government should do more to create a more civic English identity. Though white Britons are broadly tolerant of other races, a survey in 2008 found that over half would not consider a non-white person to be English even if he was born in England. Still, few question the Englishness of the England football team—which contains several black players. If that bunch of serial losers can unite the nation, developing a few other sources of English pride ought not to be too difficult. ________________________________________________________________ After having read the article I wrote to the Economist this email and also sent it as a letter:-

In the above article you have published the following statement:- "For some, the flag of St George is too closely associated with far-right groups such as the English Defence League and the English Democrats."

The English Democrats are not, and never have been, “Far-Right” and you have no conceivable honest justification in making or publishing such a blatant and politically partisan slur.

In fact the English Democrats are the English nationalist party which campaigns for a Parliament for England, First Minister and Government, with at least the same powers as the Scottish ones within a Federal UK; for St George’s Day to be England’s National holiday; for Jerusalem to be England’s National Anthem; for a Referendum to leave the EU; for an end to mass immigration; for the Cross of St George to be flown on all public buildings in England.

The English Democrats are England’s answer to the Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru. The English Democrats’ greatest electoral successes to date include winning the Directly Elected Executive Mayoralty of Doncaster Metropolitan Borough Council and the 2012 referendum; We won the referendum which triggered a referendum to give Salford City an Elected Mayor; In 2012 we saved all our deposits in the Police Commissioner elections and came second in South Yorkshire; In the 2009 EU election we gained 279,801 votes after a total EU campaign spend of less than £25,000 (giving the English Democrats by far the most cost efficient electoral result of any serious Party in the UK).

In the circumstances I write to formally request a full right of reply to be published in your next issue.

Please confirm your agreement to the above, within the next 48 hours, failing which we shall forthwith make a complaint to the Press Complaints Commission.

Many thanks for your note, regarding the description of the English Democrats in last week's issue of The Economist. I accept that it is inaccurate to refer to the party as "far-right" and I am sorry that we did so. I will print a correction in this week's issue (which appears on Friday) and also amend the online version of the article, appending a note to explain why.

Please do not hesitate to get in touch in future. Your note appears to have reached several people; I am the right person for complaints regarding the Britain section.

Thank you. I wasn't sure to whom I should complain. I think that I am also entitled to a Right of Reply but would be happy to do this cooperatively by way of a letter commenting on the Article and without being too pointed about the error.

Dear Mr Tilbrook, Please send a letter to our letters editor--email address in the paper. Letters do not appear immediately, but two weeks after the publication of the article to which they refer. I cannot guarantee your letter will appear in the paper, but we will run it online. In my view a correction is the appropriate response to your complaint--you are challenging us on a point of fact, not on a point of argument.

In our article “Identity parade”, published in last week’s issue, we described the English Democrats as “far-right”. This is inaccurate. They are a nationalist party that campaigns for an English parliament. Sorry. This has been corrected online.

I will do that. Our letters editor is happy to run a trimmed version of your letter--please see below. This may not be the absolute final version: we sometimes need to cut letters further to make them all fit on a single page. I like your point about the popularity of English independence v the popularity of Scottish independence.

Joel Budd

—

SIR - In reply to your article on Englishness ("Identity parade", May 25th) I would point out that the 2011 census showed that 60.4% of people in England stated their only national identity as "English" and a further 9.1% said it was "English and British". In sharp contrast only 19.2% claimed to be "British only".

The demand for English independence is increasing in England. A ComRes survey in June 2011 found 36% support for England to be a fully independent country, irrespective of the result of the Scottish independence referendum. Since then support has grown and the demand for independence is now significantly more popular for England than for Scotland.

On the subject of Independence, Prof Charlie Jeffery told me that there is about to be published the annual British Social Attitudes Survey (which is considered by academics to be the Gold Standard of opinion polling evidence) which he said will show that the demand for English Independence has risen and is now "substancial but not yet overwhelming or an absolute majority". I take this to mean in the upper 40s%.

There is also research evidence that much of UKIP's current support is from people who are now identifying as English nationalists and who, intruigingly, want Independence from the UK. Their tactical support of that British nationalist party is apparently because one aspect of their desire is Independence from the EU!

A Scottish nationalist might point out that the prospect of English independence is considerably more distant than the prospect of Scottish independence from Britain (or, for that matter, the prospect of a British departure from the EU). No referendum looms on English independence. So the question is rather more theoretical at this stage.

Yes that Scottish Nationalist would be right because such things don't just happen, they have to be campaigned for - usually by a political party. In their case the SNP has been campaigning for this since 1927! The English have yet to get started! We have had a longstanding trait of being slow starters but thorough finishers if we once get going. The impression that I get is that there is a growing feeling that we might be starting now.

Having got the apology and correction agreed as you see I have pushed for a letter to be published as well. Finally I would like to thank those who drew this issue to my attention. I do think that the above shows that a focussed campaign of complaining does work.

I am sorry but I find the attitude of Sunder Katwala extraordinary, if not wholly evil. He chose to emigrate to or his parents chose to emigrate to a country which had been ethnically little changed between 1066 and 1948. They emigrated to, at the invitation of successive governments since 1945 but never with the consent of the natives who were never even asked for it, a European Christian country with the third most stable population in the world. Having got here they decided that they did not like those white people having a homeland of their own, they must be made to share it with Mr Katwala and his fellow immigrants. Because the natives knew who they were and who the English were, namely an ethnic nationality, Mr Katwala has said that must be changed and England must adopt a civic nationality. I never cease to marvel at the arrogance of people who have arrived here from the Indian sub-continent, mostly only in the last 50 years. Would Mr Katwala like India to adopt civic nationalism and Indians to share their country with Africans, Chinese, Europeans etc. I am sure the answer would be no. As Paul Weston of Liberty GB asked Sonia Gable of Searchlight and Hope not Hate,"Do the English not deserve a homeland of their own like Indians, Chinese, Japanese and Africans?". Her reply was that we do not because we and our fellow Europeans, who are sharing the same fate, deserve to have our homelands taken away for the evil way we have treated the rest of the world.

We have just passed two anniversaries. The first was the 60th anniversary of the coronation and I suggest you view David Dimbleby's programme about the same. Some of us will find it perhaps too depressing or distressing. You will witness the last gasp of the English, a gentle, civilised, cohesive and homogeneous people where the crowds were controlled by smiling country bobbies with not a weapon in sight. Even as it was taking place plans were being laid for the dismantling of the homogeneous nations of Europe and those of European settlement. As the UN's commissioner for migration, Peter Sutherland, explained to a parliamentary committee, the UN's aim, as it has been for 60 years, is to so flood Europe with third world peoples so that the old homogeneous nations of Europe will be destroyed for ever to enable the creation of the Marxist totalitarian superstate that is the EU as a step towards one world government with the UN as its headquarters. The UN's agenda 21 speeding up this process was incorporated in the Lisbon Treaty and was never made known to Europe's native inhabitants. Swedes have been told to forget their history as it no longer applies to the New Swedes. This is much the same as Tony Blair told us. Sweden is a country or just an economic area but not a nation and is just a place where anybody can live.

The second anniversary was the 69th anniversary of D-Day. Most of those who fought there or fought in or grew up during the War and absolutely furious atthe trasformation that has taken place in the last 60 to 70 years through mass immigration and the imposition of other liberal Marxist values and feel their sacrifice was in vain. Like so many they feel that something does not quite add up in what has happened through the creation of a borderless and non-democratic world. This is because they are unaware of what the Marxist UN has been planning for nearly 70 years. I beg you all to watch Dimbleby's programme. You will suddenly become aware of the evil thing that has been done to this nation and other nations which is no more than genocide. But Blair sidestepped that one by claiming their was no such thing as the indigenous English. Strange then that Jack Straw said that England and the English were not worth saving. Who did he mean by the English?

I held back from saying who Peter Sutherland is employed by. It is difficult to know when Marxism ends and International Capitalism begins or whether the former are the useful idiots of the latter or whether, indeed, they just exist in a symbiotic relationship. The really useful idiots are those who fought or lived through the War to save a homeland and are bewildered as they watch it slipping from their grasp during the so-called peace which has, of course, been no more than a war of attrition lasting decades.

I think I'll give the Dimbleby programme a miss. He puts himself across as the essence of Englishness but in reality he is anything but. He can be counted as being amongst those of the liberal elite who are most responsible for what has been done to this country. Question Time should be a place where members of the British public who disagree with the direction in which the country is headed are allowed a say but the programme is nothing more than a mouthpiece of the Guardian reading liberal left. Look at last weeks programme in Blackburn. Questions were raised about the ghettoisation of Blackburn along religious lines, whether it was right and what could be done about it. But, as ever there was no real debate just a politically correct, simplistic interpretation with no grounding as to the true reality and reasons for the division which towns like Blackburn are facing. If Dimbleby had disagreed with the leftist bias of Question Time (which he doesn't) he could have taken a stand years ago by resigning from the BBC on principle. But he was only concerned with picking up his exorbitant tax payer funded cheque whilst the country was divided up on ethnic, cultural and religious lines.

Yes, but watch it for the programme, not for Dimbleby. I remember him on the Question Time programme with Nick Griffin, which even non BNP supporters described as a show trial. I know he is politically correct if not totalitarian par excellence.

As regards, Blackurn, when I went to my C of E primary school there in the 1950s it was 100% indigenous English - by the way it was nice to see that Bonny Greer on the Question Time programme was such an expert on English dna - it is now 90% Pakistani muslim and C of E in name only.

Fair enough, I have watched the programme now lol. Yes, it really does highlight how London and the rest of the country have changed since the Queen's coronation.All those people excitedly gathering round a television to watch the coronation - the BBC could have put on an extra programme entitled 'How London will look in 2013'. Would those people watching have agreed with the way their country was to be changed beyond all imagination.. I have my doubts. I often wonder what Dimbleby thinks of the transformation of England. Does he see the real transformation of London? Does he think the multiculturalisation of London has been to the towns advantage? No doubt he lives in the same middle class English hamlet in which he has always lived, full of 'glorious' liberals with their liberal, fair minded ideals held staunchly intact. Secluded In a kind of time warp where to his own mind nothing really has changed. As for the Queen, she has had sixty years. She could have stood up, she could have said something, she could have abdicated in protest. But she has done nothing but allow this country's identity to be stolen from its native peoples. The queen will continue to holiday in Balmoral whilst towns like Blackburn have become completely Islamified.

The Economist's published article contained an interesting map showing where the biggest number of folk live who think of themselves as English. Those areas, mostly in Yorkshire and Lincolnshire are where the EDs need to establish party branches. The map also shows that much of the south (where Ukip is entrenched and folk feel more British than English) is not fertile ground for English nationalists.

"Far-Right" is just one of several, usually one-word, slurs that are used to try to convince people that the person or party so slurred need not be listened to. The damage was done when the article above, appeared in print. The apology may have repaired some, but I suspect not all of that damage. It is a shame that political parties cannot persue a claim for libel, in these circumstances.Clive,Weston-super-Mare.

The BBC in their report on the sentencing of the islamic terrorists who were plotting to kill or mame members of the EDL - sadly they arrived with their party poppers once the party was over - described that organisation as extreme right wing. Tommy Robinson once sentencing had been passed shouted "God save the Queen". The islamists replied with God is great in Arabic. Don't they like our queen? This must mean that Churchill was extreme right wing and on a par with Hitler. After all he was opposed to mass non-European immigration and had some damning things to say about islam. He would not have allowed more than a handful into the country. So this just shows you how the Marxist consensus has shifted the parameters to the extreme Left. In 1955 Churchill's views would have been looked at by the majority as common sense and the BBC, although leaning to the Left even then, would have had to agree with the prime minister. I wonder whether the Queen shot up from her armchair whilst listening to the news and shouted, "Thanks Tommy. Rock on". I would love to know what she really thinks. I am sure she does love the Commonwealth i.e. the New Commonwealth, she just probably prefers it over there rather than over here.

I have just found somebody else on the extreme right, President Putin of Russia. Interesting to compare the attitudes of Russians and Australians and compare the reasons why. Both are masculine societies where strength is respected and weakness derided, forged of a harsh environment. Australia has its red heart, Russia her white outback of Siberia. Russians prefer strong leaders even if they compromise their democracy. Here we have weak leaders who compromise democracy. No Western leader would have dared say what Putin said. Compare the following statement from President Putin after the arrest of 300 suspected islamic terrorists with similar statements made by pm Julia Gillard of Australia. Not that they are on top of it down there, they had similar exhortations that Lee Rigby should burn in hell from their most vocal minority. Incidentally, Putin has said that France has been colonised by her former colonies. I am sure he thinks the same of Britain.

Putin said, "In Russia live Russians. Any minority from anywhere , if it wants to live here should speak Russian and should respect Russian laws. If they prefer sharia law then we advise them to go to places where that is the state law. Russia does not need minorities, they need Russia and we will not change our laws to try to fit their desires no matter how hard they scream discrimination. We have to learn from the suicides of America, England, Holland and France if we are to survive as a nation. Russian customs and traditions are not compatible with the lack of culture or the primitive ways of most minorities." How many public order offences would he have committed here or in France, Sweden, Holland, Germany, Denmark or Norway? Arrest that man pronto!! Please remember that it was predicted that Russia would ultimately save European civilisation from the Marxism that was imposed on it in 1917 and now holds Western Europe in its stranglehold. Please also remember that Russia has lost hundreds if not thousands of its citizens to islamic terrorism.

Yes, it sounds positively Churchillian. I could imagine Churchill speaking with just the same force and in much the same tone. Time now surely for the Marxist revisionists to start on demonising Winston. Or perhaps they will have to wait a decade or two until those of us who know the truth are dead and buried.

UKIP have just welcomed Mr Amjad Bashir, a Pakistani-born restaurateur, as their expert on small businesses. This should be interesting as to how it plays out amongst the closet islamophobes in their ranks and any future attempts to invite Geert Wilders to come and speak to them. Pleased that Chris Huhne who tried to block his coming last time ended his career in disgrace and in prison.

I have just discovered there will not be a problem with Geert Wilders coming to speak here whether UKIP invite him or not. On the news today we were told that the American whistle blower, Edward Snowden, who is holed up in Hong Kong will be given no other place to run to by the US government. They are just biding their time until China extradites him to the US.

We were told that Britain will not let him in. But then we were also told that Geert Wilders is barred here. This was a revelation to me and shows that Britain is one of the most illiberal countries in the world where free speech is totally taboo. Mr Wilders has recently spoken in California, he has spoken in Australia, albeit after some debate and I am not aware that he is banned from any country on the Continent; although he could be in the multicultural police states of Norway and Sweden.

I believe that Marine Le Pen recently spoke at Cambridge University. Why, then, is Wilders barred? I suspect that Nick Clegg might be something to do with it. I also suspect that so terrified are the government now of the muslims in our midst or of the ethnic strife which the judge said could easily have occurred if the islamic terrorists had murdered or injured those taking part in the EDL meeting in Dewsbury that they dare not run the risk. Americans are lucky to still have the first amendment, just, for Obama is sure to remove it soon, as he is trying and failing to remove the second.

Not much activity on here for a while, perhaps Robin is on holiday. So I thought I would post about a very disturbing development that has occurred in the last few days. The Girl Guides have now abolished their oath to serve God and their country, well in Great Britain at least as far as I am aware.

When I was a boy scout I think we still promised to serve God and the Queen. It would seem that the Queen had already gone, presumably for fear of offending staunch republicans. Now the country has gone to be replaced by serving your community. That could be the Pakistani muslim community, the Indian Sikh community, the Chinese community, the Indian Hindu community, the Afro-Carribean community, the Polish community and even the dwindling indigenous English community. So for the girl guides at least, in line with the Marxist one world agenda, England no longer exists. Is the assumption there that it would be offensive to expect immigrants to promise to serve the country they have settled in? By the way, the estimated population of Africa is due to be 1.5 to 2b, India and China over 1b, Pakistan 265m, Japan is about 180m and not a hint of multiculturalism, whereas the population of Europe is only 500m of whom probably 10% now are not indigenous Europeans. You can see where we are heading.

Presumably we now have a communities secretary because we are now no longer a country, at least as far as England is concerned and not even a nation as far as the United Kingdom is concerned.

Worse still is that God has been replaced by staying true to one's beliefs. Hence, if any of the girls are members of the Red Brigade or potential islamic suicide bombers then that is fine because they are staying true to their beliefs. Lord and Lady Baden-Powell must be spinning in their graves at mach 2.

My methodist minister came up with an interesting point. There is a belief that totalitarian systems remove God as soon as possible so that they can replace Him with a totalitarian ideology. This has been true of all totalitarian socialism, from the French Revolution, to the Russian Revolution, to Nazism and now One World Marxism. God is replaced by Napoleon, Uncle Joe, the Fuehrer, Chairman Mao and the Dear Leader.

I have a theory that the guides' oath is just a further step in that direction ultimately to the Dear Leader or World President with our country being replaced by World Government. It very much smacks of the Marxist international. I promise to serve the Dear Leader and World Government.

It is perhaps not surprising that this started with the girl guides as the fair sex seems much more vulnerable to the siren calls of international brotherhood or sisterhood and world peace. Women tend to put family, home and the immediate environment first; hence their support for gun control in the US even if it may permit the advance of totalitarianism. Men are programmed to show an interest and protect a larger area and are more circumspect where the world beyond our borders are concerned and hence more interested in international politics and world events. Any lady may now demolish my argument if she chooses so to do!!

I was genuinely shocked at BBC radio 5 Live's coverage of this story yesterday. Their reports started by correctly stating that the Girl Guides were abandoning their oath to serve God and their country. But then the story went on to focus totally on the abandonment of the oath to serve God (a significant change in its own right) whilst totally failing to mention that the 'to serve their country' part of the oath was also being abandoned. It says everything about the anti British BBC that they intentionally failed to highlight the importance of the 'to serve their country' part of the oath. No doubt the reasons as to why it might be of an importance for the Guides to preserve their oath to serve their country are lost on the BBC.

The Scouts and Guides have been on this politically correct path for some years. First salvo was the permission for girls to join the Boy Scouts. Then to serve 'your God' not the Christian God. Again, the most depressing thing is seeing the lack of resistance to the changes.

In a recent Daily Mail article published in connection with Father's Day it was revealed that one in four fathers in Britain was now born abroad. The figure for England may be even higher and this does not include those whose fathers or grandfathers were born abroad. It is now clear that England is to be one of the first hitherto white countries to fall victim to the genocidal intent of the New World Order. Looking at the best rated comments following the article one read, "Goodbye England", so is there any point in fighting any more? Another read that this is pure genocide which of course it is. This is the England that until 1948 had the third most stable population in the world and had had minimal immigration between 1066 and 1948.

England is now the most densely populated country in Europe having edged ahead of Holland. However, what people may not realise is that the next country, Belgium, is half as densely populated.

It is time for the orgnisation Genocide Watch to turn its attention to England? although I cannot see this as likely. However, it has turned its attention to white farmers in South Africa who are being murdered in the most barbaric fashion, including children, at an alarming rate. The thinking now is that after Mandela's death, Jacob Zuma, who is committed to white murder will attempt to drive out or kill the remainder and seize their land. In retaliation, Afrikaaners are pledged to form their own homeland.

It seems that the native peoples of these lands are largely responsible for the way that this country has been handed away on a plate over the last sixty years. The indigenous people of these islands have voted in a succession of anti English governments who have set about destroying England's structure and heritage. These traitorous governments have carried out their Internationalist objectives right in front of the peoples own eyes without them even raising a whimper. The thousands of years of ongoing struggle and strife which protected England's collective identity counted for nothing to them. That was all in the past and of no relevance because they had become more enlightened and intelligent or so they lead themselves to believe.On current trends the native people of England will be in a minority in as little as forty years and they will have no one but themselves to blame. They will be replaced in the main by people of the Islamic faith who's religion, historic and cultural identity is at the heart of their very being and existence.

Procrastination is the thief of time. I think that the English deep down in their souls knew that Enoch Powell's predictions were true when he uttered them in 1968 but they kept their heads down below the parapet and their fingers crossed that something or somebody would turn up to stop it. People did warn them. Like them or loathe them the BNP spoke the truth in speaking of the slow genocide of the English people. But the English were afraid of being made to look illiberal or being berated by the establishment and so they kept their counsel. But now they have reached the Rubicon and they know that it is now or never. Quite what is going to happen we do not know but most other white countries, including the United States, are in the same predicament where the once overhwelming white majority will be in the minority in from two to four decades. The whole world is in turmoil now because of the internationalist One world agenda and its Marxist useful idiots. There is going to be bloodshed all over Europe, South Africa, Australasia and North America. If you want to know what has happened, the England described in Shakespeare's Blessed Plot speech from Richard the Second has been smashed to smithereens, its defences breached and it is the prey of every evil wrongdoer from all over the world. Read Guillaume Faye's book the Battle of Europe. He explains that it is being orchestrated from America and I think the devil lives in New York City.